If Carnera beat Ali, what evidence would you need to decide it was legit?

Very good points. Just a few random thoughts. A bit of an unbridled ramble, by all means skip if necessary.

Perhaps you planned it as such, but it’s an excellent hypothetical since you have Primo with mob ties and alleged fixes. Then you have Ali perhaps the least likely to throw a fight or be coerced into same (but I still think that innocence based just on previously upheld character might still not be sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt). Then you have a fight complexion, a full distance bout, that doesn’t fit the scenarios that one might assume would be easier to execute for the sake of a fix.


If you firmly believe Ali can’t be swayed, then you will accept the result period and perhaps or perhaps not look for legit explanations as to how Primo came to beat Ali in an honest fight. You will not seek evidence of a fix. It goes no further in that regard.


I will say that burden of proof does have its merits. A cold accusation requires at least some entry level proofs or pointers. This case is different from a cold accusation in so far as the spectator might view themselves as a literal witness to a “crime”, fix, impropriety etc and treat what they see with their own eyes as “evidence” in part or in whole. That may lead them to seek further supporting proof but really, even without it, if their greatest conviction rests on their own eyes, they might not be swayed from their first hand perception any which way.


Also, they might see boxing in general as having “priors”, a history for fixes and what not, and therefore be on the ready to suspiciously question any apparent anomalies in the sport as they perceive them.


We could flip the premise with the hypothetical that, years after the fact, “deemed” iron clad evidence was uncovered “proving” that Joe Frazier was paid off to throw the first fight with Foreman with Joe being told to make it look good and that George would actually be connecting with hard shots to add to the authenticity.


Would you buy the “proof” (as good as whatever that proof can be, aside from you see with your own eyes) in the face of the absolutely contrary and otherwise legitimate vision as you originally perceived it?

I picked Foreman v Frazier 1 but really, it can be any fight that, based just on the vision alone, you feel would represent the absolute antithesis of a strongly perceived fix.